JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. The captioned second appeal is filed by defendant Nos.6 and 7 feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the appellate Court, wherein, the plaintiffs' suit for partition is decreed granting 1/6th share to the plaintiffs. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranks before the trial Court. 3. The family tree is as under: 4. The plaintiffs are the daughters of one Channappa and Putalabai. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit against the legal heirs of their brothers Shanker and Baburao, who are arrayed as defendants in the present suit. The present suit is filed by contending that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties and plaintiffs being the daughters are entitled for their legitimate share in the suit schedule properties. 5. Defendant No.1 contested the proceedings by filing the written statement. Defendant No.1 contended that the plaintiffs deliberately not included all the properties and therefore resisted the suit by contending that the suit for partition is not maintainable. Defendant Nos.2 to 7 were served with summons and they did not contest the proceedings and they were placed exparte. 6. The trial Court though answered issue No.1 partly in the affirmative and held that suit schedule properties are the joint family ancestral properties, proceeded to dismiss the suit on the ground that though plaintiffs were notified by framing an issue for not including all the properties, the plaintiffs have not opted to include all the properties and therefore, suit was dismissed as not maintainable. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal and filed an application seeking inclusion of the properties which were left out. The application was allowed and by way of amendment, the plaintiffs were permitted to include the left out properties. The appellate Court having re-appreciated the oral and documentary evidence having found that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties and having regard to the right of the daughters in term of amended Sec. 6 of Hindu Succession Act, proceeded to decree the suit granting 1/6th share to the plaintiffs. 8. The present defendant Nos.6 and 7, who were not contested the proceedings have filed the present appeal and hence the present captioned second appeal is not at all maintainable. 8. The present defendant Nos.6 and 7, who were not contested the proceedings have filed the present appeal and hence the present captioned second appeal is not at all maintainable. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the suit schedule properties are the joint family ancestral properties. Defendant No.1 by filing written statement has raised a sole defence that the present suit is not maintainable as all the properties are not included. The plaintiffs have rectified the said defect in the plaint by seeking amendment of plaint before the appellate Court. Before the appellate Court, the plaintiffs were permitted to include the properties left out as contended by defendant No.1. Infact the said anomaly is rectified and if the appellate Court has granted 1/6th share to the plaintiffs, which is strictly in terms of Sec. 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, this Court is unable to understand as to how defendant Nos.6 and 7 who have not contested the proceedings by filing written statement can question the preliminary decree granted by the appellate Court in favour of plaintiffs. Therefore, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. Accordingly, second appeal is dismissed.